Major League Ready

That has nothing to do with my post. My post responded to a post that suggested we don't have any long-term contracts with SPs. While technically true, we have the same advantages (years of control) with prearb or arbitration eligible pitchers without the risk. Therefore a distinction with no downside. Perhaps more importantly building a staff from within provides longer control in most cases at lower cost and lower risk. Something you are ignoring for a fast fix that is an inferior strategy. That's really what this is about. Immediate satisfaction vs taking the time to follow a better strategy.

I have posted the same information for all of the 5+ year free agent pitchers on several occasions starting three years ago. I used fWAR because it's higher in most cases and I did not want to be accused of bias. I even summarized the average WAR and the average WAR after the first year in order to address the viability of signing them before we are ready to compete. Based on the posts here year after year I have to assume those who lobby so relentlessly for these signings simply ignore the information and will ignore this information as well. Some downright ridiculed the assertion that building a pitching staff through free agency is a poor practice with a high probability of failure.

That's seems like an extreme long-shot and we would still be trying to establish a rotation in 2023. We would also not get the Abs needed to establish Miranda / Martin or the OF candidates. I would much prefer a full season to audition as many players as possible and go into 2023 with some new talent with some ML experience and a good understanding of what needs to be done in the off-season to be a legit contender.

Analytics have advanced our understanding of how to be effective. That’s not really our problem with the game, IMO. The root cause of the problem that the players have changed and the rules have not been adapted to counteract the changes in players. 1) The ave velocity and number of high velocity pitchers have gone up considerably. There are also a lot more pitchers with absolutely nasty breaking balls. It’s much harder to make contact now. 2) We have a lot of very strong / power hitting players at every position. They are focused on HRss not putting the ball in play. 3) There is a lot more money in the game and the players who hit HRs get paid more as do pitchers who strike them out. 4) A variety of influences have made the games much longer. We all want the completely dominant high 90s pitchers and 40 HR guys but the fact there are so many of them has changed the game. I don’t know how we change the emphasis on velocity or hitting home runs but we could change the rules to speed up the game. We could start by banning batting gloves with Velcro. I am kidding a little but the stepping out on every pitch to adjust batting gloves is something I could live without.

IDK Doc, shouldn't we expect them to follow the same strategies Cleveland used during Falvey's tenure. With the exception of Oakland, Cleveland had by far the most 90 win seasons in the past 20 years. I think this path is very intentional. It's not hard to see the blueprint. Establish 2, 3, even 4 pitchers (SP&BP) at the major league level. Transition Miranda and Martin and maybe Lewis to the big leagues in 2022 and also figure out if they have a LFer among the prospects. I am not hung up in the least on their spending level in 2022. Let's find out what holes Miranda and Martin will fill. Let's find out of we have a SS and a LFer and let's find out if we have a top of the rotation guy or 2 among these prospects. Having that budget next year to spend once we have a better understanding of long-term needs will be a good thing.

And what is the difference in terms of producing long-term solutions which is the point right? The only distinction between a contract and players under team control is that with a contract the team has X number of years of control and are obligated to pay the player regardless of how they perform. Under team control the team has 6 years of control but has the option to cut them at any point. Obviously, the latter is far superior. Having an entire rotation of prearb or even arbitration eligible SPs would be a far superior position to having “contracted players”. You are trying to suggest that following a superior practice is somehow creating a problem. Framing it the way you have just demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity. Am objective view would be to look at how successful teams have been built over the past 20 years. That view would clearly illustrate that building from within has been by far the more effective approach, especially for teams with below ave revenue. An objective view would also recognize FA SPs fail at a high rate, especially after the first year. They may or may not execute on this plan but building from within has very clearly been demonstrated to be the superior approach. Yet, you are bent out of shape because the FO has best practices which btw they have already demonstrated their ability to executive albeit with a different organization.

The difference is the "normal" timeframe associated with rebuilds. 5 years for a rebuild would generally be pretty good. The Royals had 20 years of rebuilding before having a coupe good seasons before they went into rebuild mode again. The plan it appears they are following would mean investing 1 year. Obviously, they need to have some success establishing a couple SPs this year or they are in the same position as this year. I assume you see a distinction between investing a year and going through a 5+ year rebuild, right?

I will join you in condemning him for saying one thing and doing another if he trades away these core players. However, you said "Levine might "bristle" at the idea of a rebuild, but that is exactly what he is doing." as if these actions have taken place. Call me old fashion but I don't believe in calling a man a liar because of what I think he is going to do. Lock out aside, let's wait until this action is taken before judging actions.

When I think of a rebuild, the examples that come to mind are Chicago trading away Sale and Eaton with 3 years of control or when the Astros traded away every veteran player knowing they were going to be a 60 win team. The Mariners trading away Cano and Diaz after an 89 win season. If the Twins were rebuilding I would expect them to trade away any veteran players of value. They would surely trade Donaldson even if it were for partial salary relief. Polanco / Kepler / Sano / Rodgers / Duffey / Garver would all be traded. Isn't that what rebuilding teams do?

The reluctance to sign big name free agent SPs who get 5+ years is made out to be a "Twins" thing here everyday. How many have been signed by Oakland / Indians / Twins / Mariners / Dbacks / Brewers / Rays / Reds / Orioles / Pirates / Marlins / Padres / Rockies / Royals. Just an FYI, I listed them by the number of 90 win seasons over the past 20 years. The answer is 2. The Dbacks signed Greinke in 2016 after getting a billion dollar TV contract. The won 69 / 93 / 82 games and traded him at 2019 deadline. The Rockies sign Dan Hamption to an 8 year deal in 2001 and that deal was a complete disaster. Are we to conclude that all of these teams just don't understand the value of signing the top free agent SPs?

I think a number of people here are capable of being objective but you will need to come up with a better argument than the HP umpire will now be disinterested in doing their job. I don't think they will pout like children. I think they will adapt to changes just like all of us adapt in our professions. You think they make bad calls because they can be reviewed? They are evaluated on every call. They also don't get to that level without pride in doing the job right? We could have figured out that you were not going to be objective by the emotionally based non-sensical rant without you pointing out you would not exercise any objectivity.

Joe Ryan / Bailey Ober and Jorge Alcala are not long-term solutions? Yes, I know Ryan has a grand total of 5 starts but he looks like a long-term solution at this point. They are betting they can establish multiple additional long-term solutions this year. If they are correct the long-term looks much better than it would had they signed a couple free agents. If we look at how players are acquired on playoff teams, draft, developing and trading for prospects has proven to be a much better long-term approach. It does not make sense to criticize the long-term implications of this approach while supporting strategies that pay off quickly while ignoring the long-term implications.

We already have instant replay to assist determining if a ball was caught or fair. Accounting was designed and practiced by humans. Should we go back to an abacus? Bad calls impact the game unfairly. To accept these errors and the unfair impact on the game is irrational if a system can be designed to completely eliminate them. Sure seems like that would be holding on to an antiquated practice because we don't like change. The world has changed which necessitates change in any organization. Those that don't adapt go away or are greatly diminished.

How about the time they won't spend between pitches either asking the ump about the pitch or walking outside the batters box grumbling about the call.

They are not standing pat. They are going to get another established arm, probably Pineda or at least someone similar. If they add a decent SS they will be within a couple games of 500.

If they added 4 arms over even the next year and a half and a couple of them were legit #2-3 we would be in very good shape for the next 6-8 years. Trade away the wrong two like we did with Ynoa and Gil and the equation changes substantially. The problem is that we could pick the prospects among them most likely to succeed and so can the teams trading away established pitchers. They are not trading those established pitchers unless it's for the most likely to succeed among our prospects. Getting Two good established pitchers would likely cost four of our top six pitching prospects. If we established 4 prospects in addition to Ryan and Ober there would be no need to add any pitching via free agency other than a top of the rotation guy for the next several years. They are talking this approach because the payoff is a 6+ year window. The alternative is two years with a modest shot at contending. The Padres who had the best farm system in baseball used that depth to trade for 3 starting pitchers. They won 79 games. We heard the same endorsements of trading for Snell and Darvish. Those two surely do not look like reliable difference makers and the Padres are stuck with this strategy because neither pitcher is worth more than their salary at this point. Darvish was replacement level for the entire 2nd half. They traded away 10 prospects on this bet. Maybe we should sign Musgrove as a FA next year! If they build an entire staff from within, they would have about $60M (post Donaldson) to spend on a top of the rotation guy and a SS. If Lewis turns out to be our SS, they would have another $30M to fill holes. That's how you follow the Tampa / Oakland model but also take advantage of our added financial resources. Oakland has the best record of below average revenue teams and the most 90 win seasons over the past 20 years because they trade 2 year assets for 6 year assets so why should we do the opposite?

Bauer was acquired after his first season in which he was below replacement level. Kluber and Carrasco were prospects that had never pitched in the majors. The trades being suggested here suggest trading prospects for established players which is an entirely different strategy. While they are both trades, one could argue that trading for prospects is and entirely different strategy than trading prospects for established players. If you look at Oakland and Tampa’s rosters over the years you will see that trading for prospects had a huge impact on their success.

They had a better record after Maeda got hurt and Berrios was traded. They were 500 after the deadline. Obviously, trading Berrios did not make them better. Just saying those young guys and the BP gave us a chance. It sure would be nice if Winder stepped right in like Ryan was able to do.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying. My focus is that Cave and Litell are not impact players. Ynoa and especially Gil will probably be the kind of players that could be impactful on a contender. We don't know this for sure but at this moment they look good. Perhaps another way of looking at it is that Littlell and Cave were easily replaceable and I would give their past production up to have Gil and Ynoa going forward or you could look at it this way .... they would be worth far more as trade assets today.

Winder was going to be the next man up. Do we know if he is healthy or is this something we won't know until spring training?

The only place I would be less inclined to spend that kind of money is 1B.

Mooney's K rate is really impressive. What's his velo on his FB and does he have a plus pitch among his other offerings?

I shared your disappointment in some of the evaluations but I tend to be a little more forgiving because every team makes those mistakes. Yes, they should have been better. I have a bigger problem with errors in critical thinking. In other words, I think its bad practice to trade away high ceiling arms for players with very modest ceilings as the Twins did with Ynoa and Gil. Obviously, this is a judgement call and therefore debatable. Gil is 2 years younger than Joe Ryan and Ynoa is 21 years old. The fact the trade took place 4 years ago is not something I would consider in evaluating those trades. They were high ceiling SPs which the Braves and Yankees recognized. They have not done much yet because they are very young. Gil looked dominant in his limited time and as I said Ynoa is 21 years old and already established. We would be really well positioned right now if we had those two. Add one strong FA and the Twins look good for the next 5+ years. Perhaps the next 7-8 years with all of the other prospects. The Braves and Yankees obviously saw the potential. Who knows … The might both be #4s but they look like important pieces at the moment. Gil in particular looks like he could be a top of the rotation guy. 2022 and beyond would look great if these two were Twins. IMO, those two trades are the biggest negatives because they have the greatest potential impact if Gil and Ynoa progress as expected.

Most of the talk here has been about SPs with 1-2 years of control. I am sure we would all welcome another Maeda or Odorizzi deal. The only way they are getting 3+ year players is to trade away multiple top prospects. I have said it before and will say it again the logic that we have not succeeded in the past at best practices (developing pitching) means we should pursue inferior strategies just drives me crazy. The solution is not to follow bad practice. That's a horrible plan. History is very clear that developing pitching is crucial to success so get better at it. Change the people. Change the practices. Change things until you are at the top of the industry at what matters most. BTW ... it looks like they have improved. We are about to find out and trading away those assets right now is about as ill-advised as it gets.

The FO gets positive marks for extending Polanco, Buxton, and Kepler. The Polanco deal was really smart and they found incentives to get it done with Buxton while mitigating some of the risk associate with an injury prone player. They got very good value out of the Maeda / Odorizzi and Berrios trades. Cruz / Donaldson / Pineda / Schoop / Cron / Thielbar were all good FA signings. Wisler was a good waiver pick-up. The biggest negatives for me were giving up Ynoa and Gil. Sure, they were very young but they were high upside guys traded for players with minimal upside. Happ was also a bust. I have no problem with Shoemaker. That was a low risk deal with upside. I am just slightly upset with Baddoo because I can see why they did not think they needed to protect him. Tyler Wells was a mistake. All said the positives have outweighed the negatives. If the pitching prospects pan out, the positives win rather decisively.